Prostate needle biopsy examination by means of virtual microscopy.

This study aimed at determining whether virtual microscopy improves the accuracy in the pathological examination of prostate needle biopsies regarding maximum tumor length, percentage of positive cores, and Gleason grading. We assessed a series of 816 prostate needle biopsy cores in 68 consecutive patients with prostate adenocarcinoma. Biopsy specimens were reviewed using conventional examination. Then, slides were converted to whole slide imaging (Olympus BX51). Tumor was measured, and Gleason score was assigned using the OlyVia software. Optically evaluated pathological features were compared with digital findings to determine whether one of these two methods for the assignment of a preoperative Gleason score is appropriate for predicting the definitive Gleason score of radical prostatectomy. When comparing optical and digital measurements, maximum tumor length in biopsy cores and percent prostate needle biopsy with cancer showed no significant difference. The mean variation in the measurement of tumor length was 2.65mm per biopsy. Among 240 biopsy cores involved with cancer, the concordance rate for Gleason score assignment was 75.8% (κ=0.49, good agreement). When considering the higher Gleason score assignment as the score for the entire case (ISUP 2005), the concordance rate was 69.1% (κ=0.46, good agreement). When comparing the biopsy scores with the definitive score of radical prostatectomy, the concordance rate was significantly increased from 54.4% for conventional examination (κ=0.23, marginal agreement) to 66.2% for virtual slide examination (κ=0.42, good agreement). Virtual microscopy does not compromise, but might improve, the accuracy of grading in prostate needle biopsies. This requires further assessment.

[1]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Combined modality staging of prostate carcinoma and its utility in predicting pathologic stage and postoperative prostate specific antigen failure. , 1997, Urology.

[2]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic Grading and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1981 .

[3]  Gleason Df.  Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .

[4]  Mikael Lundin,et al.  Web-based virtual microscopy in teaching and standardizing Gleason grading. , 2005, Human pathology.

[5]  S. Groshen,et al.  Computerized Quantification of Tissue Vascularization Using High-resolution Slide Scanning of Whole Tumor Sections , 2003, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[6]  Ş. Özdamar,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of WHO and Gleason histologic grading systems in prostatic adenocarcinomas , 2006, International Urology and Nephrology.

[7]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides: implications for medical education and differences with experience. , 2006, Human pathology.

[8]  M. Urashima,et al.  The maximum tumour length in biopsy cores as a predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy , 2007, BJU international.

[9]  Hartwig Huland,et al.  Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Joseph A. Smith,et al.  Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: A nomogram for staging prostate cancer , 2004 .

[11]  S. Freedland,et al.  Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[12]  J. Bishoff,et al.  Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. , 2003, Urology.

[13]  Victor E Reuter,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility in digital and routine microscopic assessment of prostate needle biopsies. , 2011, Human pathology.

[14]  Anil V Parwani,et al.  Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. , 2008, Human pathology.

[15]  R. Montironi,et al.  Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[16]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. , 2006, Human pathology.

[17]  M. Rubin,et al.  What information are urologists extracting from prostate needle biopsy reports and what do they need for clinical management of prostate cancer? , 2005, European urology.

[18]  A W Partin,et al.  Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. , 1997, JAMA.

[19]  David J Romer,et al.  Using a modified standard microscope to generate virtual slides. , 2003, Anatomical record. Part B, New anatomist.

[20]  Johan Lundin,et al.  Virtual microscopy in prostate histopathology: simultaneous viewing of biopsies stained sequentially with hematoxylin and eosin, and alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase/p63 immunohistochemistry. , 2006, The Journal of urology.